Last week we finished some YouTube versions explaining the skeptical case. These grew out of the interview we did with Nick Minchin and Anna Rose for the ABC documentary I Can Change Your Mind. They are what we would have said, if wed been editing the documentary .

In the interview we were on a mission to show the evidence the ABC wont show  and of course, true to form, the ABC did exactly that, and didnt show it. As David often points out, the mainstream media have never shown this data anywhere in the world, ever, even though it is extremely relevant, from mankinds best and latest instruments, from impeccable sources, and is publicly available. Not to mention that billions of dollars of public policies depend on getting this right either.

This is a strictly no-budget approach to organize the message for those on the web who prefer to see videos rather than read papers. Here are three YouTubes by David Evans, thanks to Barry Corke (for the filming and editing). I hear that one I did will be ready sometime.

A little background. When the documentary interview happened in our kitchen, we noticed something interesting. We felt the film crew, a producer and two camera people (dressed trendy, mainly in black, straight from Ultimo central casting) arrived expecting to find paid hacks, or slow moving ideologues who struggled to get a grip. Its not that they said that of course, they were pros. But they had been hearing for years how we are evil shills for big tobacco and oil interests who were cynically only in it for the money. We stress they were professional and polite, and this isnt in any way a complaint about them, but it was a distinct sense we had.

Then the interview happened. For two hours we presented evidence, determined to show graphs from respectable sources like NASA, photographs of actual thermometers, and had answers to absolutely everything and then some with details of scientific stuff like feedbacks and clouds. I took the predictable ad homs about funding, and turned the tables completely  we were the unfunded volunteers working for professional and patriotic duty against a wall of billions of dollars, while they lost data, hid methods, and called us names. I suppose they noticed we were a tad passionate, not cynical shills. Meanwhile Anna Rose came armed with print outs from DeSmog or Exxon secrets or some such and clearly had no idea of the science beyond the rudimentary: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 levels are rising, and its getting warmer, so how can you be a skeptic? (Whats a feedback?) She lived and breathed the postmodern view of science (climate scientists are the new Pope).

Sometime during this process the documentary crew started treating us with respect. After the interview, they even wanted to speak to us, not just the perfunctory things the situation demanded. We felt we had changed their minds. Ok, we dont hold any illusions it lasted long, and I suspect many audio and camera guys are closet skeptics to start with. Once they were back in ABC world among their friends and People Who Know Best, we are confident they went back to viewing us as untermenschen deceiving scum. But just for a moment there, some minds were changed.

The skeptical cameraman recording it all for us, Barry Corke, had a good view of the whole proceedings because once he set up his cameras he just sat back and watched. We asked him afterwards, and he had noticed the same phenomenon. And thats where the idea of these YouTubes was born  if it worked on battled hardened culture warriors working for the ABC, perhaps the public might like to hear what we said?

No, this isnt footage from the ABC documentary I Can Change Your Mind  thats a very large file, and we are trying to condense it so it can appear in a complete but manageable form. Soon.

Our host, Jo Nova, reported the amazing 30-year timeline of events leading to the Climategate documents and emails that surfaced in Nov 2009.

We now have reliable evidence that events leading to Climategate actually started 64 years earlier as one of two response to the nuclear fires that consumed Hiroshima and marked the end of the Second World War on 6 Aug 1945.

World leaders became rulers rather than servants of the public in hiding the source of energy that sustains our lives, controls Earths ever-changing climate, and powers the expansion of the universe as compact nuclear matter is transformed into expanded atomic matter.

One key to this great mystery was reported in the autobiography of Sir Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows [University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, 1994] 441 pages.

In describing a conversation with Sir Arthur Eddington on a spring day in 1940, he reports:

We both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, . . .(page 153)

The high-iron solution continued to reign supreme in the interim (at any rate, in the astronomical circles to which I was privy) until after the Second World War, . . . (page 153)

The other key to this mystery was reported by the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda  formerly the faculty member at the Imperial University of Tokyo who was sent to Hiroshima to investigate its destruction on 6 Aug 1945  in the Introduction to ["The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon" [Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982] 165 pages.

One day in August 1945, while standing in the ruins of Hiroshima, I became overwhelmed by the power of nuclear energy. The sight before my eyes was just like the end of the world, but I also felt that the beginning of the world may have been just like this. (page 2)

The beginning of the world was indeed like the event that consumed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945, as finally published this month in the Apeiron Journal19, 123-150 (April 2012) http://tinyurl.com/7t5ojrn

The supernova birth of the solar system had been studiously avoided since first revealed by the decay products of short-lived radioactive elements in the Earth and in meteorites in 1960.

Write the pols and let them know youre passing the above vids and articles to all your friends and relatives, and that you know of many others doing the same. Sign off with, Word of mouth trumps advertising!

At the beginning of the first video Dr Evans notes that Electrical Engineering is the field of knowledge that knows most about how feedback works. I would add that because this is very true many of the dumb mistakes climate scientists make about feedback are obvious to many in the electrical and electronic trades. For example anyone who has spent time repairing the once common as mud VHS VCR needed to be able no just to understand but also to quickly and affordably diagnose problems with many different types of nested feedback loops built into the one machine and all working together. The incredibly complex yet common machine used many different types of feedback loop technology. I bet that these climate alarmists had no idea that normaly humble TV repairers all over the planet were laughing hysterically at some of their stupid claims.

I respect David Evans knowledge but there are a few things such as heat and mass transfer that other engineers may have a better understanding (and far better understanding than any climate scientist). Feedback (which requires good measurement) is a very important consideration in process control which is a speciality of chemical engineers.

The IPCC projections for temperature rise over this century, given in Table SPM3 on page 13 of the SPM, range up to a scary 6.4 degrees. The associated text says Assessed upper ranges for temperature projections are larger than in the TAR (see Table SPM.3) mainly because the broader range of models now available suggests stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. Such a projection seems far-fetched, given the 20th Century temperature rise of around 0.6 degrees, and the established logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide, meaning that more carbon dioxide has less effect.

So where do these unlikely projections come from? Page 12 claims that Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. This is based on computer modeled positive feedbacks from increased water vapor and clouds, specifically designed to increase the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on temperatures by several times the values supported by theoretical physics or by the actual 20th century temperature record (which provides no evidence of such positive feedbacks).

Part of the argument for this feedback is that warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation and hence more water vapour, another greenhouse gas. But we have already seen that there is no increase in water vapour.

What does the IPCC mean by Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty? Here it is necessary to interpret the IPCC code and read between the lines, or look up the relevant section of the main report, section 8.6.3.2 on p. 635. Here it is indirectly acknowledged that cloud feedback is negative, since warming leads to more evaporation, more cloud formation and hence more reflection of sunlight. Another mechanism whereby water vapour feedback is negative was discussed by Lindzen (1990) Some coolness concerning global warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 71: 288-299. In general, in nature, negative feedbacks are far more common than positive ones. Negative feedback gives stability of a system to external perturbations, while positive feedback leads to instability and exponential growth. If there was a positive feedback mechanism between carbon dioxide, temperature and water vapour, as hypothesised by the IPCC, it would have led to large fluctuations in the past.

When water vapour exists in air at 2%, it adds 0.02 x 0.5 = 1% to the airs heat capacity, which is negligible. However, by changing phase from vapour to cloud, it releases a latent heat of 0.02 x 540 = 10.8 (cal), equivalent to 10.8 / 0.5 = 22 degrees of warming. Water vapour is thus a considerable player in the transfer of heat through the atmosphere.

Is there an understandable explanation of feedback for normal people?

Plug a microphone into the AUX jack on your stereo, and then hold the mike in front of a speaker  that screech you hear is audio feedback.

If you hit a bell it makes a ringing tone. Any given bell always makes the same tone  the principle of church bells. If you set a sound system to output that same tone, the bell will start to ring in sympathy  also feedback. But in music, we say that the bell resonates, but it is the same thing.

All systems from a simple bell to a complex sound system have at least one resonant frequency where the note continues at the same frequency for as long as energy is supplied  positive feedback. Bad sound systems (and bells) have more than one resonant frequency.

Non-resonant frequencies die away much faster than resonant frequencies, so much more energy is required to maintain that particular sound. That is negative feedback.

Finally, if you hit a bloke down the pub, he will probably hit you back  feedback, but not as we know it

If you (CO2) punch a professional boxer (H2O) in the face, hell knock you coldern a mackerel. Instant negative feedback.

If a bully (government funder) punches a coward (grant-seeking academic climate scientist) in the mouth, hell cry and beg for mercy (promise to prove CO2 rulez). This excites the bully who will proceed to pound the coward into a pulp (utterly destroy his integrity). Run-away positive feedback.

On the reticence in withdrawing / correcting false information. Once its been broadcast its had the desired effect. The impressionable have been exposed to it. Isnt thats what broadcastings about ? Certainly in the Movement builder Anna Roses program, the presumption was thoroughly on the skeptics needing help. ( or at least the ones that arent nasty, incorrigible deniers).

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.